Re: wine-license digest, Vol 1 #140 - 9 msgs

On Fri, 14 Jun 2002 16:00, Greg Alexander wrote:

> "Deven T. Corzine" wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Sean C. Farley wrote:
> >
> > > > In fact, in the above scenario it would be the BSD/X11 license that is
> > > > interfering with the _library developer's_ ability to make a profit off
> > > > of their code.
> > >
> > > How?  The BSD/X11 license can be integrated with commercial as well as
> > > GPL code.
> >
> > I think that was the point.  If a library author places the library under
> > the BSD/X11 license, they can't hope to make a profit from selling it to
> > proprietary interests, since it can just be appropriated...
> >
> > Of course, this is why a hybrid model like Sleepycat's works well.
> >
> > Deven
>
> This is what I meant, except that even if a similar library is developed
> independently and placed under a BSD/X11 license there is still no way
> to make a profit off of the proprietary version of that library.

How many libraries can you think of that are open source and have a
proprietary version?  I can only think of Qt.  TransGaming somewhat fit
in this category as well.  I bet after I send this e-mail I will
remember some more.

I know of companies built around open-source libraries.  Zend
(http://www.zend.com/) comes to mind.  PHP is more of a framework than a
library, but it is basically the same.

Sean
--------------
[email protected]